The Never-Ending Political Campaign

“There are plenty of reasons to believe 2016 will be a very ugly
election year.” (Ref. 1) Political campaigning
for the presidency in the year 2015 has already proven to be just that and it is only getting worse.
Several questions exist about the candidates, about spending on the campaigns, on the duration of the
electioneering, and on other factors.

We Americans are suffering from election campaign overload. There is essentially
no time when we are not being bombarded with some campaign news, candidate rhetoric, campaign advertising,
or pundit pontificating. Election campaigning has grown into a year-round activity – a very expensive one.
I, for one, am tired of it and want campaign activities limited in scope, duration, and cost. One writer
addressed the interminable campaigning as follows: “A year of covering the 2016 race like this would
fossilize my soul, and reading a year’s worth of analysis like this will drain all the precious fluids from
my eyeballs.”(Ref. 2)

Reforming America’s Election Process

In the United Kingdom, when the prime minister calls an election, it can take as
little as one month to complete. In France, the national election campaign takes all of four months. Yet,
the American presidential election process can take anywhere between 10 and 48 months. It was not always
this way. “The very first presidential election in 1789 was fast and smooth -- electors voted in January
and George Washington took office in April. For most of the 19th century, candidates were chosen by caucuses
consisting of influential members of Congress, and party movers and shakers. If several candidates were at
odds within a party -- as in 1860, when William Seward, Salmon B. Chase and Edward Bates were political
rivals to Abraham Lincoln -- everything was worked out at national political party conventions where back
room deals generally decided who would become the nominee. At that point, the campaign -- with candidates
refraining from stumping themselves, but merely making statements or sending out surrogates -- would take
place in September and October before elections in November.”
(Ref. 3) Such is no longer the case. Instead, the election
process normally starts at least a year-and-a-half before the actual election and, all-too-frequently, even
as early as at the conclusion of the previous election. There is just too much time and money being expended
on the current version of the American presidential election process.

Israel’s election process has some interesting features which we here in America
might want to consider for introduction into our own electoral process.

Billions of dollars are wasted on election campaigns here in the United States. In
Israel, "The State of Israel covers most of the parties' budgets and only a small fraction of party financing
originates from sources other than the state budget.” (Ref.
4)

According to Israel’s Party Financing Law, a treasury allocation for election
campaigns is granted to the parties putting up candidates. Each party receives an allocation based upon a
given formula.[4] This means that Israeli elections are
primarily publically financed.

The law concerning non-public financing, is extremely strict and limiting. No party
can receive a political contribution, directly or indirectly in excess of a sum established by law. A political
party or candidate cannot receive a financial contribution from someone who is not eligible to vote in the
elections, such as foreign nationals who do not also hold Israeli citizenship. Corporations are also
prohibited from making political donations.[4] Just think of
the billions of dollars that would be saved if some form of similar laws applied to U.S. elections.

Here in the United States, campaigning begins as soon as one election is completed.
There is no respite. The electioneering is interminable. Television ads, radio ads, and print media ads seem
to start the day after an election. In Israel, election broadcasts cannot begin until 21 days before the
elections. “All election advertising is broadcast free of charge on television and radio, although the
parties are responsible for preparing the advertisements at their own expense. Under the principle of equal
opportunity, it is prohibited to purchase broadcasting time.
"{Israel’s} Election Law contains strict rules regarding the timing, length and content
of television and radio election broadcasts. Parties participating in the elections receive broadcasting
minutes according to a formula set in law. Each is given a basic and equal allocation of minutes for
broadcasts on television and radio. . . .
“. . . Parties are also limited in the amount of election advertising they can
print in newspapers.” (Ref. 4)

What a relief it would be if American election campaign advertising were
limited to just 3 weeks prior to the elections! What if campaigning of any form were limited to a month or
two before the elections instead of the one or two years of electioneering that we now have?

All state primaries and caucuses for the presidential nomination should be
held on just one day throughout the country. This would stop the stupidity of the various states
fighting over who will hold the first primary in the nation, and would force the candidates to present one
unified message to all the voters in all the states instead of saying one thing in one state and something
different in another state.

Holding primaries on one day would stop the incessant arguments about the influence
of states holding early primaries upon those states that hold later primaries. Each state would now be
equally important.

Because primaries would be held on one single day and campaigning would be limited
in duration, campaigning would have to be done on a national basis instead of on a state by state basis.
This would minimize campaign costs.

Reducing the Money Wasted on the Presidential Campaign

It is estimated that the 2012 presidential campaign cost $2.6 billion, the 2012
congressional campaign cost more than $3.7 billion, bringing the combined total spent on the 2012 elections
to nearly $6.3 billion.[5]There are a number of
places where $6.3 billion could be better spent than on all the noise and bluster of presidential and
congressional political campaigns!

Besides, being an unnecessary waste of money, political contributions bring with
it the threat of elections being “bought”. As one political commentator noted: “The flood of billionaire
money unleashed by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling threatens democracy by allowing an oligarchy
to buy elections.” (Ref. 6)

“At least one small slice of the American public looks forward to the non-stop,
sleazy political advertisements set to inundate viewers during the 2016 elections: media executives and their
investors.
“. . . the chief executive of Tribune Company, said . . . that the next presidential
campaign presents ‘enormous opportunity’ for advertising sales. Speaking at a conference {he} referenced
Super PAC spending as a key factor for why he thinks Tribune Co. political advertising revenue will rocket
from $115 million in 2012 to about $200 million for the 2016 campaign cycle.
“. . . not everyone is unhappy about the billions of dollars being wasted on
election campaigns in this country. The chief executive of Media General . . . told investors in February
that his company is positioned to benefit from unlimited campaign spending, referencing decisions by the
Supreme Court. ‘We are really looking forward to the 2016 elections with spending on the presidential
race alone estimated to surpass $5 billion,’
“In 2012, {the} president and chief executive of CBS, memorably said, ‘Super PACs
may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS.’
“. . . In a February investor call, {he} predicted ‘strong growth with the help
of political spending,’ particularly on television. He added dryly, ‘looking ahead, the 2016 presidential
election is right around the corner and, thank God, the rancor has already begun.’
“In recent months, executives from media companies . . . have told investors that
they are expecting a big jump in revenue from the 2016 political ad buys.
“The New York Times and Bloomberg have chronicled the rising political revenue to
broadcast media companies, a trend accelerated by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which
effectively removed limits on individual, corporate and union spending. . . . the 2016 campaign cycle is
expected to be the first time digital advertising alone will reach $1 billion, making big money groups a
lucrative source of revenue for online publications. - - -
“In spite of declining television advertising revenue expected this year, credit
rating agencies recently gave broadcast companies a sunny two-year outlook. The reason, {according to}
Moody’s senior credit officer, . . . is that political ad spending is expected to boom next year thanks
in large part to the Citizens United decision. ‘Political advertising revenue defies gravity', {he}
remarked.” (Ref. 7) With more and more money being spent
on campaign advertising, the citizens of America can anticipate being increasingly bombarded with political
junk on television, radio and in the nation’s newspapers. Buying or renting movies sounds like a very good
move for many of us. In October of 2015, more than a year away from the presidential elections, we are
already seeing more and more campaign advertising on television.

What are Qualifications of the Democratic Front Runner (as of October 2015)?

According to Reference 1, The Democratic
front runner, Hillary Clinton, is running on a record of no accomplishments other than an “ability to weather
various scandals and humiliations.” A focus group of Iowa Democrats was asked, “What did she accomplish that
you consider significant as secretary of state?” “No one had an answer.” While Clinton supporters “said she
knows how to get stuff done,” none could name anything that she’s actually accomplished. At this
point in the presidential election campaigning process, one of her major appeals to liberal Democrats was
the fact that if elected, Clinton would oversee the appointing of some 5,000 government bureaucrats. Quite
simply, “If you’re a liberal Democrat, you want liberal policies implemented by liberal officials.” – Not
by conservative Republican appointees! Hillary Clinton’s “record amounts to surviving scandals, many of her
own making. Her most compelling selling point is that she’s a woman. And her strategists have decided she
needs to energize the ‘Obama coalition’ of low information voters.“

From my perspective, Hillary Clinton has four positives going for her in her
campaign for the presidency: (1) she’s a woman, (2) she’s a Democrat,
(3) she’s a liberal, and (4) her name is Clinton. Unfortunately, these,
and not her accomplishments nor her abilities, are what liberal Democratic voters are applauding. Are these
reasons enough to make her president of these United States? There was a time when proven
ability and a track record of honest accomplishments mattered!

The Specter of Political Hanky-Panky

One interesting charge being floated concerning the upcoming 2016 presidential
election is that President Barack Obama is trying to effectively steal the election for the Democratic
nominee.

“According to reports, Obama’s federal government is trying its hardest to urge
legal U.S. immigrants to become registered voters.
“As . . . pointed out, ‘Almost all of them will vote Democrat, so you can see the
motivation there.’
“A former Justice Department official . . . agreed, saying that Obama is basically
trying to use his federal muscle to ensure the Democrats maintain power come 2016.
“ ‘What they’re doing is a full-court press on getting these aliens — 9 million of
them — registered as citizens in time for the 2016 election,’ he alleged. ‘They are redirecting resources of
DHS {Department of Homeland Security} to this effort, this campaign.’
“Furthermore, an internal DHS Task Force memo . . . bluntly admitted that this whole
move is being carried out for political purposes. . . .
“The problem is that all of this is pretty much legal . . . “(Ref.
8)

Could this be the real objective of the president’s recent immigration reform
efforts?

The Republicans are Shooting Themselves in the Foot

To some of us, it appears that that the Republicans are determined to hand the
2016 presidential election to a very mediocre Democratic candidate, Hilary Clinton, who is carrying a ton
of baggage into her campaign for the Oval Office. Their leading candidate in an overly crowded field of
Republican nomination seekers is Donald Trump, who many Americans, Republicans included, view as a bombastic,
egotistical loud-mouth who is unelectable. No other of the more than a dozen current candidates stands out
from the crowd. On top of that, the Republicans are publically squabbling over issues that divide the
ultra-conservatives in the party from the more centrist and main-stream members of the party.

With respect to Donald Trump, there is a notably high number of potential voters who
view Trump unfavorably and say they would definitely not support
him.[9]

“Trump's bombastic, controversial statements could also derail the entire debate or
cause headaches for his GOP rivals for the nomination by forcing them to answer for his views. Trump's latest
fiasco -- he said that some Mexican immigrants were “rapists and criminals” -- is only the latest example of
the threat he poses to the party.” (Ref. 9)

Moderate Republicans are publically fighting with conservative Freedom Caucus
members of the party. Because of the conflict, John Boehner has resigned as Speaker of the House and there
is now a heated and very public debate over who will succeed Boehner. This conflict may well prove
disastrous to the Republicans in next year’s presidential elections if they cannot unite and put forth
a strong candidate – time is fleeting. As a result the next twelve months could prove to very tedious
and contentious for the American electorate, and for Republicans in particular.

Some Suggestions for Reforming the Presidential Election Process

I recommend:

Limit pre-primary campaigning to the 3 month period from the 1st of June until the 31st of August

Hold all state primaries for the presidential nomination on one day in September - Labor Day

Limit campaign spending by any candidate to a total of $10 million and adjust that amount every four
years for inflation

Permit campaign contributions from any and all sources with no limit on any single contribution,
but only permit campaign spending by the candidate